muscleserge's forum posts

Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#1 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"] Sigh, let analyze this, just for fun.

The EU is not a singular entity as many refer to it here, its made up of many sovereign nation with many sovereign governments vs Russia's one strong government.
-Advantage: Russia. Like it or not, its much easier to mobilize one country vs many, as well as having a tactical advantage of a unified leadership. In the scenario in the thread the EU also has unified leadership.
Russia is the most resource rich country in the world (due to size), and the EU is very dependant on Russian exports of not just energy but timber, metals, and many other invaluable resources.
Advantage: Russia. They don't need to import anything to build whatever they wish, they've got everything from oil and diamond to timber and animal furs. They EU might have the means, but they rely on Russian exports for a lot of crucial resources. Sure they can get it else where, but procuring new contracts and waiting for deliveries just gives the Russians more time for the invasion, since Russians already have equipment ready to deploy. And what do you think will happen to Russia's economy if you take away all those oil exports?Their economy will crumble, while I'm certain that there are enough countries willing to take over russia's oil and gas share.  And unless you can state why timber is a neccesary resource in wartime than that's irrelevent.
Russia is a military superpower like it or not, since the Soviet days. For nearly 50 years they were preparing for an all out war, depending just on themselves.
Advantage: Russia. Sure the EU was also waiting for a war, but they were and are relying on the US too much, their military doctrines are built around this, especially when it comes to Russia, and the SU before that. Oh please, are you telling me that you think the russian army as it is right now, is superior to the combined armies of the eu? The EU has more men, larger budget, better trained, better equipment.
All these $ figures mean squat when most of it is all inflated by the banking system, and please also consider that equivalent Russian arms are cheaper to produce. So, your just dismissing the fact that the EU has more ten ten times the amount of money to play with than russia? 

As well as the overall quantity of weapons, and please don't buy into the stereotype that the Russians are still using PPSH's and Musin Rifles. Russia is using AK-74Ms and 101/103Ms, T-80s (modernized) and t-90s, they have stealth fighters, bombers, unrivaled air defense capabilities, as well as the best missile tech in the world.(they are the fathers of rocketry) I never said Russia uses 19th century equpment, but what high end technology can Russia still produce without foreign help? Otherwise what can Russia possibly produce that's not derived from soviet-era technology? IT- nope. Transportation- nope. Consumer electronics- nope. Tooling machinery- nope. Bulava missiles perhaps. Russia has almost zero civilian high-tech engineering capabilities, any innovative systems not wholly developed by the military will need to be imported or stolen via aggresive FSB activity. The West is surging ahead in UAV technology, which is the way of the future. The incursion into Georgia showed just how antiquated the Russian military has become - they had access to zero modern ISTAR capabilities. The Russian military can but dream of operating MQ-9 Reaper type drones allowing their C&C to sit in Moscow and watch real-time action on the ground thousands of miles away. RVT's are now common place amongst UK & US troops in A-STAN allowing for real-time viewing, this technology incorporates miniaturisation advances taken from the electronics industry.
As for the tanks, that's classic ww2 thinking.  Think about aviation & electronics. I think most Western armed forces nowadays would think of large numbers of poorly-equipped (as in short of sensors, protection systems, etc) tanks trundling west as a target-rich environment, not a serious threat. Russia doesn't have stealth fighetrs, they do have stealth bombers though. They have been revamping their military since NATO is still closing in and a new chinese threat is looming. They have satelites, drones as well as a very good intelligence network. Let me repeat this, Russia isn't stuck in the 40s or 50s as many believe, its a stereotype. I found it funny when I came to the west to find the media spewing so much BS about Russia, and yet when the Russian leadership stops NATO from invading say Syria, everyone goes ape-shiii1t. The reason that Russia was able to stop the west from intervening in Suria was because Russia used it's veto, and that doesn't really have to do much with a war between Russia and the EU. 

Don't forget that Russia is very secretive about their defense industry, its a habit they inherited from the Soviet days, look around online, the Russians are declassifying many documents from the Soviet era, and sometimes it puts me in awe that they had those kinds of things in like the 60s.

I am not saying that the EU equipment is bad, just that the Russians aren't behind, and are actually ahead in some areas (missiles) The Russians ARE behind in military equipment. Russia's defence industry is dying, selling AK's, heavy tanks and artillery is one thing, moving to net-centric warfare platforms suitable for the 21st Century is another. Russia's R&D base has suffered horrendously because of a lack of cash coupled with an increasing brain drain as key engineers and scientists leave for more lucrative offers outside the country in the private sector. The once famous universities that produced high-grade scientists are also starved of cash and many of Russians best and brightest are more interested in making money than serving the state.
Advantage: Russia, simply cause they got more weapons.

More weapons? Russia Fighters: 669 EU fighters: 2020

Russia transport/airlift aircraft: 396 EU transport/airlift aircraft: 512

Russia MBT's: 6500 EU MBT's: 6021

Russia AFV's: 6000 EU AFV's: 37137

Etc etc.


I am at work and can't really go too deep into this, but what I meant by Russia having resources to take the EU fast, I meant they have the natural resources as well as production capabilities all in one country unlike the EU. They don't need to go abroad to get building materials or energy, they can sustain themselves even if isolated, which the EU syply can't especially to the same degree.deeliman

I agree that the EU can't really survive isolated as russia can, but the EU isn't isolated in this scenario. And Russia can't even dream about the massive production capabillities of the EU, the Eu can get plenty of natural resources elsewhere very fast. 

I do sincerely like the fact that you claim that Russia has a huge edge because it is 1 country, but you dismiss the fact that the EU has a far better eqipted,trained and funded combined army and that the Industrial base and R&D is huge compared to Russia.

Timber is a very valuable resource war or not, plus having the resources at home is vastly better than having to depend on imports. Russia is world's #2 exporter of arms, so I don't think their defense industry is lacking much, in fact it is doing very well, you just don't see it in the west, after all western nations still hold Russia as an adversary, so no good things are ever said about it, in fact facts are skewed in the media in regard to Russia and its affairs all the time. (hence the stereotype) The brain drain was a 90s thing, infact Russia is investing heavily into the tech sector and R&D right now, they even built their own silicon valley. Even under a single leadership, your always going to face issues because those are separate countries, many don't really like each other. One other important fact is that the Russian populace is much more ready for war than the EU, they are generally fitter and due to conscription are much more war ready. Current day Russia still has a deep military tradition, where as the EU countries don't, at least not any more. It is much easier to find someone to sell energy to than to find a good, reliable supplier who won't charge you more due to desperation. Imagine war starts tomorrow, Russia cuts off the energy suppy, by the time the EU gets an new supplier, Russia will be half way done, and if they do it in the winter, even faster, cause the EU will divert some of its energy reserve for heating people's homes. Russian tech you ask? There is a good Russian TV show abou ttheir military kinda like the discovery channel did for the US, let me see if I can find it with subtitles, they show a lot of modern Russian equipment, high tech too. I am not blaming you for the opinion you hold, its just that no one in the west gets any of this and their main source of info is Hollywood or the biased media. But trust me, Russia isn't lacking in that department.
Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts
[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Barbariser"] The E.U. does not really need to occupy "Russia" to win. What is relevant from WW2 is that Germany alone stood a decent chance of reaching Moscow and defeating the U.S.S.R. with a crappy horse-drawn logistics train and very little access to fuel, and the E.U. is vastly more powerful with respect to Russia than Germany was to the U.S.S.R.. When a country's capital falls its ability and will to wage war can literally be crippled.

How did taking Moscow fared in the previous wars. This concept plays into the Russian hand all the time, they even draw the enemy in. Lets get something straight. Russia going into full war mode means the EU stands no chance. All your leaders, both political and military know this, hence the current NATO policies and strategies. The Russians have enough resources to plummet the EU nations into the stone age and pretty quickly at that. Russia is resource independant, whereas the EU isn't, they have the equipment and manpower to do the job as well. Remember a while back Russia moved some iskandar class missiles to Kaliningrad in response to the NATO threat and half of Europe went nuts. The EU is too dependant of foreigh energy to wage even a defensive war, that alone makes them the losing side. The Russian military doctrine has changed over the years, they would proly go with a bombing campaign, ie missiles, bombers and artillery (of which they have plenty of), then they would cut off supplies, and the EU falls. Being so dependant of the US has made the EU weak, like it or not.

In previous wars? Napoleon seized Moscow with early 19th century tech. His campaign failed because Moscow was not the capital of Russia at the time. Crimean War? Russians conceded defeat and nobody had to take the capital. In WW1 Germany thrashed the entire Russian Empire (considerably larger than modern Russia in the Western portion) without having to reach the capital, in WW2 Germany nearly beat the entire USSR (also larger and more populated than modern Russia in the West) and lost due to getting stalled in Stalingrad. Notice that France and Germany managed these feats while being at war with half the rest of the world? It's hilarious that you rag on the E.U. for being "dependent on the U.S." when in every major conflict that Russia has historically won with Western European powers, they did so as a member of an alliance. Guess which power the U.S.S.R. was dependent on for supplies and products in World War II? Oh, that's right, the United States of America. What history shows you is that Russia's few military victories were mainly achieved with significant allied aid and a vast numerical advantage. Too bad Russia is outnumbered horribly by the E.U. in this scenario and no country except tiny insignificant Belarus is going to be stupid enough to ally with them against the E.U. Nothing you said in your post proves anything. Of course NATO was planned as a team effort, it was created in an era where the entire eastern half of Europe. was in the Warsaw Pact (and remember, the U.S.S.R. was considerably larger than Russia). Of course the E.U. would grumble if Russia placed a strategic weapon there. You understand that countries don't like fighting wars or being bombed in the process even if they would probably win right? Practically all modern military powers today use "bombers, artillery and missiles", do you think the E.U. relies on knights and crossbowmen? :roll: The resource concerns are far less relevant when the entire E.U. has a large oil producer in the form of the U.K., numerous oil-rich allies like Canada, the United States and Norway, and a giant pile of Middle Eastern countries down south that they could just buy it from. In contrast, Russia will enter a ginormous recession when the E.U. stops buying their stuff and they lose 10%-15% of their G.D.P. instantly. I might also like to mention that Russia is a net importer of food, again mostly from the E.U. One of the sides in this war is going to go hungry alright, and it isn't going to be the rich coalition containing several major food exporters as members. The only way for Russia to actually starve Europe of necessary resources is via blockade and are you going to claim that the Russians would be able to blockade a coalition with the largest brown water navy in the world and several aircraft carriers? Or that the U.S. and their world's largest blue water navy would allow the Russians to blockade their largest trade partner?

Please stop using WW1 as evidence, it show the lack of historical knowledge, Russia had to withdraw from the war due to having a revolution and a civil war. Britain was getting the most of the uS aid. Don't forget that the SU didn't expect Germany to attack as well, they still were rebuilding the country at the time, and at the end of the war the SU was outproducing all the allies and germany as well. Russia is importing food due to the WTO crap, before this Russia was feeding Europe to the extend that Europe was dependant on Russian grain exports. Belarus alone has enough fertile land to feed Russia if needed, as well as the infrastructure. Getting energy from abroad is much more inefficient, tankers can be sunk by subs or guided missiles. Russians have so many conventional bombs that they can conduct just a bombing campaign until the EU is dust, they have 36k tanks at their disposal, as well as a very large fleet of bombers. Aircraft carriers are sitting sucks these days, and are useful against weaker countries, but a country with a decent air defense system would be worried too much. Russia has plenty of contingencies for many war scenarios, since they are now getting ready to defend their territory and resources. This is mainly because of the oncoming sortages, and a western rhetoric of claiming Russian resources(publicly too). Stop underestimating Russia, and son't just read western sources, they are incredibly biased.
Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"] Do you have any sources for this or are you talking out of your ass again?deeliman

I never knew that this day and age I would have to provide sources for the Napoleonic wars and current political situations around the world thats all over the news. American education system for you, run by idiots, produces more idiots. Sigh, source for what exactly(can't believe I am actually asking this)? EU energy dependence? Russians luring in Napolian towards Moscow? Iskandhar Missles in Kaliningrad? Changes in the doctrine? The stupendeous amounts of weaponry in the Russian arsenal? PS. Next time you try being a smartass, try harder, and I hope you aren't as uninformed and ignorant as you are coming off.

LOL I'm not american. Sources for your claim that "The Russians have enough resources to plummet the EU nations into the stone age and pretty quickly at that." But answer this for me: When the EU has more then 10 times the economy, and as of now more than 2 times the military budget, how can you think that russia even stands a chance? Can you even imagine what a full war mode EU looks like? If, say, 40% of their GDP is used for the military, thats more than 5 trillion Euros! The EU also have the industrial capability to arm themselves very well, very quickly, and Russia does not. Just the fact that the EU can devote massive amounts of resources gives them a huge edge, not to mention that their combined armies are already better than the current Russian army as it stands now.

Given Europe should choose to prepare for a war with Russia, there is so much money that can be diverted, the industrial base is such a massive one, as are the R&D and human ressources, the EU would outproduce Russia in terms of quantity and quality in a massive scale.


Sigh, let analyze this, just for fun. The EU is not a singular entity as many refer to it here, its made up of many sovereign nation with many sovereign governments vs Russia's one strong government. -Advantage: Russia. Like it or not, its much easier to mobilize one country vs many, as well as having a tactical advantage of a unified leadership. Russia is the most resource rich country in the world (due to size), and the EU is very dependant on Russian exports of not just energy but timber, metals, and many other invaluable resources. Advantage: Russia. They don't need to import anything to build whatever they wish, they've got everything from oil and diamond to timber and animal furs. They EU might have the means, but they rely on Russian exports for a lot of crucial resources. Sure they can get it else where, but procuring new contracts and waiting for deliveries just gives the Russians more time for the invasion, since Russians already have equipment ready to deploy. Russia is a military superpower like it or not, since the Soviet days. For nearly 50 years they were preparing for an all out war, depending just on themselves. Advantage: Russia. Sure the EU was also waiting for a war, but they were and are relying on the US too much, their military doctrines are built around this, especially when it comes to Russia, and the SU before that. All these $ figures mean squat when most of it is all inflated by the banking system, and please also consider that equivalent Russian arms are cheaper to produce. As well as the overall quantity of weapons, and please don't buy into the stereotype that the Russians are still using PPSH's and Musin Rifles. Russia is using AK-74Ms and 101/103Ms, T-80s (modernized) and t-90s, they have stealth fighters, bombers, unrivaled air defense capabilities, as well as the best missile tech in the world.(they are the fathers of rocketry) They have been revamping their military since NATO is still closing in and a new chinese threat is looming. They have satelites, drones as well as a very good intelligence network. Let me repeat this, Russia isn't stuck in the 40s or 50s as many believe, its a stereotype. I found it funny when I came to the west to find the media spewing so much BS about Russia, and yet when the Russian leadership stops NATO from invading say Syria, everyone goes ape-shiii1t. Don't forget that Russia is very secretive about their defense industry, its a habit they inherited from the Soviet days, look around online, the Russians are declassifying many documents from the Soviet era, and sometimes it puts me in awe that they had those kinds of things in like the 60s. I am not saying that the EU equipment is bad, just that the Russians aren't behind, and are actually ahead in some areas (missiles) Advantage: Russia, simply cause they got more weapons. I am at work and can't really go too deep into this, but what I meant by Russia having resources to take the EU fast, I meant they have the natural resources as well as production capabilities all in one country unlike the EU. They don't need to go abroad to get building materials or energy, they can sustain themselves even if isolated, which the EU syply can't especially to the same degree.
Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Barbariser"] The E.U. does not really need to occupy "Russia" to win. What is relevant from WW2 is that Germany alone stood a decent chance of reaching Moscow and defeating the U.S.S.R. with a crappy horse-drawn logistics train and very little access to fuel, and the E.U. is vastly more powerful with respect to Russia than Germany was to the U.S.S.R.. When a country's capital falls its ability and will to wage war can literally be crippled.

How did taking Moscow fared in the previous wars. This concept plays into the Russian hand all the time, they even draw the enemy in. Lets get something straight. Russia going into full war mode means the EU stands no chance. All your leaders, both political and military know this, hence the current NATO policies and strategies. The Russians have enough resources to plummet the EU nations into the stone age and pretty quickly at that. Russia is resource independant, whereas the EU isn't, they have the equipment and manpower to do the job as well. Remember a while back Russia moved some iskandar class missiles to Kaliningrad in response to the NATO threat and half of Europe went nuts. The EU is too dependant of foreigh energy to wage even a defensive war, that alone makes them the losing side. The Russian military doctrine has changed over the years, they would proly go with a bombing campaign, ie missiles, bombers and artillery (of which they have plenty of), then they would cut off supplies, and the EU falls. Being so dependant of the US has made the EU weak, like it or not.

Do you have any sources for this or are you talking out of your ass again?

I never knew that this day and age I would have to provide sources for the Napoleonic wars and current political situations around the world thats all over the news. American education system for you, run by idiots, produces more idiots. Sigh, source for what exactly(can't believe I am actually asking this)? EU energy dependence? Russians luring in Napolian towards Moscow? Iskandhar Missles in Kaliningrad? Changes in the doctrine? The stupendeous amounts of weaponry in the Russian arsenal? PS. Next time you try being a smartass, try harder, and I hope you aren't as uninformed and ignorant as you are coming off.
Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#5 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] Russia couldn't even beat Chechnya, one of their own former republics. Russia can't handle urban warfare. chaplainDMK

How can Russia beat Russia? It was an uprising with in Russia it self. I wonder how the US would handle say Georgia seceding, and how they would go about fighting their own people. With the only exception that Georgia would be an Islamic country and fundamentally different from he rest. Threads like this always go the same way, some monetary figures are thrown around, some negative stereotypes and everybody agrees, but wouldn't you find it funny if the Russians would do the same for the US or the EU, saying exactly the same things. Most of the people posting here haven't even been to Russia and their facts are from either Call of Duty or Hollywood. Like it or not but reality is vastly different. The very fact that NATO is still around proves just how confident the western opinion of Russian inferiority is. Or how Washington goes ape-shiiiiiiiiii1t over some military exercises in the pacific, or how Hilary herself was sent to Russia to talk them into agreeing with western involvement in Syria. Don't you people see that whats being said and whats being done are very different things. I am not going into stats and links mode for a reason ( besides posting this crap over and over). Just use common sense people. Their was and still is a massive propaganda campaign against Russia to further stereotypes int he west and you people are eating it up. Americans lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (still ongoing for tese 2) and nobody mentions that, or says that Americans suck at urban warfare. Some posters ITT need to visit Russia, and look into some unbiased sources of news and information. The Russians quelled Georgia in what 5 days, and that wasn't even remotely close to the best Russia has to offer, the Caucasus divisions aren't very "upgraded" yet they had no problem taking care of the US backed Georgia. The west is afraid of Russia to this day for a reason. NATO is still trying to encircle them, giving even more reason for the Russians to up their game even further. What I am getting at is, don't be fooled by all the media BS. The EU will bend over backwards not to upset the Russians, and with the recent power shifts (global) some EU nations are starting to side with Russia.

They certainly wouldn't loose 200 tanks in one month and have about 5000 dead in a day. The Russian military is utterly incompetent, like it or not, the proof is in the pudding, any war Russia has waged in the past decades has not really wen't all too hot. Meanwhile anytime the US (of which the EU holds similar military quality) was in a similar situation - e.g. Afghanistan or Vietnam, it took pretty light casualties and militarily dominated the resistance. Sure, these wars you cant really win because if people want freedom they will get it, but we are talking about Russian military prowess, and it's not too hot.

And again, Russia would economically collapse without the EU buying up its oil and gas. 70% of their gas and oil is exported, Russia is worried shitless when it's production drops by 2%, if you take 70% away, Russia will collapse. Meanwhile the EU can still rely on the North Sea for oil and gas, along with US and Canadian exports. Don't you think that during the 40 years of the Cold War the European states had thought this situation through?

And everyone is worried of everyone, if the EU would move a few divisions, missles and nukes to it's borders it would make Russia worried as well. And it does, as has happened when NATO held military exercises. So yeah.

The Soviets controlled 95% of Afghanistan , don't know about you but if thats not dominating the resistance than I don't know what is. The second point about Afghanistan is that the Soviets were invited to intervene by the then president of Afghanistan to help out against the invading taliban. The Soviets built schools, hospitals and theaters, they were trying to improve the country, they weren't just bombing shiiit and going back to their base to hide out til the next run. If the americans are dominating the resistance so much along with its EU partners, how would you explain the spike in heroin production. Read up on this a bit more before comparing the two campaigns don't you. Russia has monetary reserves, and can sell oil and gas else where(there is always demand for energy, its the supply thats always the problem) China's demand grows day by day, the 70% of those exports are contractual, if Russia stops supplying energy to the EU, sure they'll get it else where but at what cost, currently energy supplies are delivered through pipelines(cheap) in the hypothetical scenario above tankers would need to be used(more expensive). The EU wouldn't survive an another hike currently. So yeah.
Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#6 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Russia's military is pretty close to antiquated. They really couldn't "win." What happened in WW2 WRT military capacities is about as pertinent as the Roman Empire on Italy's modern military capacities. Realistically, the EU would probably have logistical problems occupying Russia even should it succeed in demolishing the Russian mlitary, which it would.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

 

The best space rocket is the Soyuz, and it was designed in 1960 - and still is used consistently. 

 

Edit: just to clarify, the idea of this is to show that not always modern = better. The space shuttle was terrible, and now even the US use the Soyuz for their operations.

Barbariser

Part of that has to do that jack sh!t has been done to space technology since going to the moon, unlike military technology, so the comparison is pretty laughable.

The E.U. does not really need to occupy "Russia" to win. What is relevant from WW2 is that Germany alone stood a decent chance of reaching Moscow and defeating the U.S.S.R. with a crappy horse-drawn logistics train and very little access to fuel, and the E.U. is vastly more powerful with respect to Russia than Germany was to the U.S.S.R.. When a country's capital falls its ability and will to wage war can literally be crippled.

How did taking Moscow fared in the previous wars. This concept plays into the Russian hand all the time, they even draw the enemy in. Lets get something straight. Russia going into full war mode means the EU stands no chance. All your leaders, both political and military know this, hence the current NATO policies and strategies. The Russians have enough resources to plummet the EU nations into the stone age and pretty quickly at that. Russia is resource independant, whereas the EU isn't, they have the equipment and manpower to do the job as well. Remember a while back Russia moved some iskandar class missiles to Kaliningrad in response to the NATO threat and half of Europe went nuts. The EU is too dependant of foreigh energy to wage even a defensive war, that alone makes them the losing side. The Russian military doctrine has changed over the years, they would proly go with a bombing campaign, ie missiles, bombers and artillery (of which they have plenty of), then they would cut off supplies, and the EU falls. Being so dependant of the US has made the EU weak, like it or not.
Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#7 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts
[QUOTE="muscleserge"]So much BS in this thread its not even funny. Russia would roll over europe pretty quickly. All the reasons given in this thread is just western propaganda. Experts estimate Russia to have the second highest military budget in the world, and the Russian military is exceptional at land warfare. Just the airborne corps alone would take europe over in under a year. The funny thing is that all the people in power know it, yet the stereotypes persist. They would just bomb the hell out of the EU for a while and then send in the tanks of which they have the most in the world. Or better yet, cut off the gas and oil and watch the EU plummet into economic chaos.DevilMightCry
Russia couldn't even beat Chechnya, one of their own former republics. Russia can't handle urban warfare.

How can Russia beat Russia? It was an uprising with in Russia it self. I wonder how the US would handle say Georgia seceding, and how they would go about fighting their own people. With the only exception that Georgia would be an Islamic country and fundamentally different from he rest. Threads like this always go the same way, some monetary figures are thrown around, some negative stereotypes and everybody agrees, but wouldn't you find it funny if the Russians would do the same for the US or the EU, saying exactly the same things. Most of the people posting here haven't even been to Russia and their facts are from either Call of Duty or Hollywood. Like it or not but reality is vastly different. The very fact that NATO is still around proves just how confident the western opinion of Russian inferiority is. Or how Washington goes ape-shiiiiiiiiii1t over some military exercises in the pacific, or how Hilary herself was sent to Russia to talk them into agreeing with western involvement in Syria. Don't you people see that whats being said and whats being done are very different things. I am not going into stats and links mode for a reason ( besides posting this crap over and over). Just use common sense people. Their was and still is a massive propaganda campaign against Russia to further stereotypes int he west and you people are eating it up. Americans lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (still ongoing for tese 2) and nobody mentions that, or says that Americans suck at urban warfare. Some posters ITT need to visit Russia, and look into some unbiased sources of news and information. The Russians quelled Georgia in what 5 days, and that wasn't even remotely close to the best Russia has to offer, the Caucasus divisions aren't very "upgraded" yet they had no problem taking care of the US backed Georgia. The west is afraid of Russia to this day for a reason. NATO is still trying to encircle them, giving even more reason for the Russians to up their game even further. What I am getting at is, don't be fooled by all the media BS. The EU will bend over backwards not to upset the Russians, and with the recent power shifts (global) some EU nations are starting to side with Russia.
Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#8 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts
So much BS in this thread its not even funny. Russia would roll over europe pretty quickly. All the reasons given in this thread is just western propaganda. Experts estimate Russia to have the second highest military budget in the world, and the Russian military is exceptional at land warfare. Just the airborne corps alone would take europe over in under a year. The funny thing is that all the people in power know it, yet the stereotypes persist. They would just bomb the hell out of the EU for a while and then send in the tanks of which they have the most in the world. Or better yet, cut off the gas and oil and watch the EU plummet into economic chaos.
Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#9 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts
[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="PonchoTaco"]If Windows phones would get a better ecosystem in their app world, I would consider getting one. But I do find their interface rather boring.danjammer69

You find this boring?

It's the only Interface which lets you personalize it to yourself.  Android, Apple and Blackberry are just the same old grid icon UI.

d

Sorry, but that looks like a total unorganized mess to me.

Exactly, thats the whole point. To you it seems unorganized, but to the person who customized it it is more organized than anything he used before. Once you switch to WP8 it will be very hard to move back. The ability to prioritize my info and media feeds as well as the live tiles makes it unique from the others. IOS and Android just don't cut it for this. WP8 is somewhere in the middle of simplicity and customizability, and is a very good option for those to whom IOS is oo simplistic and Andrid is too customizable and un-uniform. Plus the phones are great (Lumia 920) and th OS is fast and smooth.
Avatar image for muscleserge
muscleserge

3307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#10 muscleserge
Member since 2005 • 3307 Posts
Since its an APU, you can't just raise the clocks on the CPU or the GPU, without having sufficient cooling, the hotter the CPU gets, the hotter the GPU will get and vise versa. Plus there are power consumption issues as well. Besides rasing the clocks even to this theoretical max still wouldn't make that CPU powerful anyway, its a laptop part designed for efficiency first.